Hearing: Subcommittee On National Parks and Public Lands

HEARING ON H.R.
588, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL

TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO CREATE A NEW
CATEGORY OF LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS TO BE
KNOWN AS NATIONAL DISCOVERY TRAILS, TO
AUTHORIZE THE AMERICAN DISCOVERY TRAIL
AS THE FIRST TRAIL IN THAT CATEGORY,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1513,
A BILL TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS
SYSTEM ACT TO DESIGNATE THE LINCOLN
NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL AS A COMPONENT
OF THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 588 AND H.R. 1513TO AMEND THE NATIONAL

TRAILS SYSTEM ACT
JUNE 10, 1997WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 10522
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42393 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO , Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina Rico
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada SAM FARR, California
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO , Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina Rico
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
RICK HILL, Montana WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel
STEVE HODAPP, Professional Staff
LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held June 10, 1997Washington, DC .................................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Bereuter, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nebraska ........................................................................................................ 4
Prepared statement ................................................................................... 7
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah, prepared statement ........................................................................ 2
Pickett, Hon. Owen B., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia ...................................................................................................... 24
Weller, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illi-
nois ................................................................................................................. 9
Statements of witnesses:
Joslin, Robert C., Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service .................................... 18
Lillard, David, President, American Hiking Society ..................................... 26
Lock, Leonard E. ............................................................................................... 31
Lukei, Mr. Reese, Jr., National Coordinator, American Discovery Trail
Society ............................................................................................................ 27
Stevenson, Katherine H., Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Stew-
ardship and Partnership, National Park Service ....................................... 17
Theis, Bill, Member, S.T.O.P. (Stop Taking Our Properties) Steering Com-
mittee ............................................................................................................. 29
Additional material supplied:
Bratton, Richard V., Mayor, Green Mountain Falls, CO .............................. 77
Dudley, Ellen and Eric Seaborg, Members of the original team that
scouted the American Discovery Trail route .............................................. 50
News-Dispatch, Sept. 5, 1997 .......................................................................... 101
Settlers Advocate, May 1, 1997 ...................................................................... 100
H.R. 588 ............................................................................................................. 38
H.R. 1513 ........................................................................................................... 47
S. Res. 57 ........................................................................................................... 95
(III)
HEARING ON H.R. 588, TO AMEND THE NA-
TIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO CREATE A
NEW CATEGORY OF LONG-DISTANCE
TRAILS TO BE KNOWN AS NATIONAL DIS-
COVERY TRAILS, TO AUTHORIZE THE
AMERICAN DISCOVERY TRAIL AS THE
FIRST TRAIL IN THAT CATEGORY, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1513, A BILL
TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
ACT TO DESIGNATE THE LINCOLN NA-
TIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL AS A COMPONENT
OF THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1997
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NA-

TIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON RE-
SOURCES, Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m. in room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen
presiding.
Mr. HANSEN. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public
Lands convenes this hearing to receive testimony on H.R. 588, the
National Discovery Trails Act of 1997, and H.R. 1513, the Lincoln
National Historic Trail Act.
The first bill is H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act of
1997, introduced by Mr. Bereuter and cosponsored by many of our
colleagues, which would amend the National Trails Systems Act of
1968 by creating a new category of long-distance national trails
and authorizing the American Discovery Trail as the first trail in
this new category.
[The information appears at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. The second bill is H.R. 1513, introduced by Mr.
Weller, to amend the National Trails Act of 1968 by designating
the Lincoln National Historic Trail in the State of Illinois.
[The information appears at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Na-
tional Trails System Act of 1968, we should reflect briefly on the
impact this legislation has had. From the initial recognition of the
Appalachian Trail in the eastern United States and the Pacific
Crest Trail of the western United States, the National Trails Sys-
tem today encompasses over 37,000 miles of trails in 45 States,
(1)
2
consisting of 20 congressionally designated, nationally scenic and

historic trails, administered by the National Park Service, the U.S.
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. In addition,
there are over 800 recognized national recreation trails that do not
require congressional authorization, which are administered by
local, State and private organizations after designations by the Sec-
retary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture.
H.R. 588 will amend the National Trails System Act of 1968 to
establish a new congressionally authorized trail category. National
discovery trails, which will be extended contiguous to interstate
trails, providing outstanding outdoor recreation and travel opportu-
nities. The national discovery trails would intertwine national, cul-
tural and historic resources and include metropolitan, urban, rural
and back country regions of the Nation. The most unique provision
of this new trail category is that there would be no Federal acquisi-
tion of land and administration would be bottom up, with local
public involvement and local and State governments supporting the
trails with only technical assistance to be provided by Federal
agencies.
Finally, H.R. 588 would designate the first national discovery
trail, the 6,300-mile American Discovery Trail, which would extend
through 15 States, from Cape Henlopen State Park in Delaware to
Point Reyes National Seashore in California.
H.R. 1513 would establish the Lincoln National Historic Trail in
the State of Illinois as a component of the National Trails System
to extend 350 miles from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River,
generally following the Illinois River and the Illinois-Michigan
Canal Heritage corridor. This channel would promote Abraham
Lincolns legacy to Illinois and would emphasize the important, ex-
isting historic and cultural sites along the route. H.R. 1513 would
also require an additional study to extend the Lincoln National
Historic Trail down the Sangamon River from Beardstown to
Springfield, Illinois.
We look forward to the testimony that will be received this morn-
ing on these bills, and I will recognize Mr. Bereuter, the sponsor
of H.R. 588, and Mr. Weller, the sponsor of H.R. 1513. Also, Mr.
Pickett from Virginia is here to introduce the American Discovery
Trail Society. But before I do that, I recognize my friend from Min-
nesota.
[The statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF UTAH
The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands convenes this hearing to
receive testimony on H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act of 1997, and H.R.
1513, the Lincoln National Historic Trail Act.
The first bill is H.R. 588, The National Discovery Trails Act of 1997, introduced
by Mr. Bereuter and co-sponsored by many of our colleagues, would amend the Na-
tional Trails System Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-543), by creating a new category
of long-distance national trail, and authorizing the American Discovery Trail (ADT)
as the first trail in this new category.
The second bill is H.R. 1513, introduced by Mr. Weller to amend the National
Trails System Act of 1968, by designating The Lincoln National Historic Trail in
the State of Illinois.
As we approach the 30th Anniversary of the National Trails System Act of 1968
we should reflect briefly on the impact this legislation has had. From the initial rec-
ognition of The Appalachian Trail in the Eastern United States and The Pacific
3
Crest Trail in the Western United States, the National Trails System today encom-
passes over 37,000 miles of trails in 45 states, consisting of 20 Congressionally des-
ignated national scenic and historic trails, administered by the National Park Serv-
ice, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, there
are over 800 recognized national recreation trails, that do not require Congressional
authorization, which are administered by local, state and, private organizations,
after designation by the Secretary of the Interior, or Secretary of Agriculture.
H.R. 538 will amend the National Trails System Act of 1968 to establish a new
Congressionally authorized trail category, National Discovery Trails, which will be
extended, continuous, interstate trails, providing outstanding outdoor recreation and
travel opportunities. The National Discovery Trails would intertwine natural, cul-
tural, and historic resources and include metropolitan, urban, rural and backcountry
regions of the Nation. The most unique provision of this new trail category is that
there is to be no Federal acquisition of land, and the administration would be bot-
tom up with local public involvement and local and state governments supporting
these trails, with only technical assistance to be provided by Federal agencies. Fi-
nally, H.R. 588 would designate the first National Discovery Trail, the 6,300 mile
American Discovery Trail, which would extend through 15 states from Cape Hen-
lopen State Park in Delaware to Point Reyes National Seashore in California.
H.R. 1513 would establish the Lincoln National Historic Trail in the State of Illi-
nois as a component of the National Trails System. The trail would extend 350
miles from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River, generally following the Illinois
River and the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor. The trail would pro-
mote Abraham Lincolns legacy to Illinois and the Nation, and would emphasize im-
portant existing historic and cultural sites along the route.
H.R. 1513 would also require an additional study to extend the Lincoln National
Historic Trail down the Sangamon River from Beardstown to Springfield, Illinois.
We look forward to the testimony that we will receive this morning on these bills,
and I recognize Mr. Bereuter, the sponsor of H.R. 588, and Mr. Weller, the sponsor
of H.R. 1513. Also, Mr. Pickett from Virginia is here to introduce Mr. Lukei of the
American Discovery Trail Society.
Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome
the witnesses and especially our colleagues, Mr. Bereuter, Mr.
Weller and others that are here to offer their support.
I understandearlier this session, Congressman Schaefer and I
got together, and we have an informal group known as the Con-
gressional Trails Caucus. This is a week in which there is a lot of
focus of attention on these trails. Also, I understand there is a
group in town this week concerned about other matters that have
some impact on this.
In any case, I would just like to point out to the Chairman, I
think it is prudent to have hearings and to move forward the issue
that the American Discovery Trail has been subjected to, an overall
study, so we have the benefit of the Park Service views on this, and
analysis; and that will be very helpful, if and when, and I hope we
do move forward with it.
I would just suggest that these trails are an increasingly impor-
tant part of our recreational and cultural experience, Mr. Chair-
man, as you are well aware.
I note that, in my community, I have been invited to speak be-
fore a religious group that is celebrating its 150th anniversary with
regards to the beginning of a trip. I am referring, of course, to the
Mormon experience, and their role in terms of our culture and our
community and building our community. In any case, those trails
have been designated; I think we see them as important.
We have all sorts of opportunities for recreational trails. I myself
use those types of trails extensively in and around our area. This
weekend I was out biking for 40 miles on one of those. Yes, I made
it back and forth, Mr. Chairman. In any case, I think they are
going to play these green fingers and the opportunity to in fact use
4
those resources as a very important aspect, as is the impact that

these designations have on the adjacent lands and the impact, for
instance, in terms of individuals concerns about that, so we have
to be cognizant of both.
I think this offers the opportunity for true partnerships with
State governments, local governments, in terms of providing rec-
reational and the identification of cultural and historic resources;
and I especially want to commend my colleague, Mr. Bereuter, who
has been working on this for about 5 or 6 years, for his continuity
of interest and effort and want to support him and Mr. Schaefer,
who is my cochairman, or cochair of this informal group known as
the Trails Caucus. We want to work with folks, and I appreciate
and I think most dothe fact you focused on this hearing today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the comments of the gen-
tleman from Minnesota, and in my many years of serving on this
committee with the gentleman from Minnesota, we have looked at
a lot of trails. We did the Great Western Trail, extending from
Mexico to Canada, up to the Rocky Mountains, and this is a very
interesting thing we are doing in America at this particular time.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, we are privileged
to have you here. We will hear from you first; then the gentleman
from Illinois, Mr. here to have you here. We will hear from you
first; then the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Weller.
The time is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTA-

TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. BEREUTER. Chairman Hansen, Congressman Vento, Con-
gressman Jones, and members of the subcommittee, it is home-
coming week for me. I spent my first two terms on this sub-
committee. Although this is my first appearance as a witness in the
Walter Jones Hearing Room, it must give you special satisfaction,
Congressman.
I would like to begin by thanking you very much for scheduling
this hearing and giving me an opportunity to express the case for
the passage of H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act, which
I reintroduced on February 5, 1997. I first introduced this legisla-
tion during the 104th Congress as H.R. 3250.
I would like to begin by stating that in an exceptional display of
support, H.R. 588 has already attracted a bipartisan mix of more
than 50 cosponsorsand I might say, this is without any effort or
one-to-one, person-to-person lobbying on my part. These cosponsors
represent both rural and urban districts and cover very diverse ge-
ographic areas. The list of cosponsors includes members from 19
States, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and the District of Co-
lumbia.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I believe it is easy to see why this
legislation has attracted such widespread support. It represents the
product of a true grass-roots effort and it is designed to provide a
unique trail experience for millions of Americans. I believe that
this legislation is a tremendously positive and exciting step forward
in both the development and in the connection of trails in America.
5
The bill contains two important components. First, it creates a

new category of trails, designated as the National Discovery Trails.
This new category will complete a missing gap in the current Na-
tional Trails System by establishing a link between urban and
rural trails. Second, the legislation will designate the American
Discovery TrailI will call it ADTas the first trail in the new
category.
This trail, the ADT, was first proposed by the American Hiking
Society and Backpacker magazine in 1989. In 1991, a scouting
team hiked and biked its way across America, working with local
citizen groups and local State and Federal land managers to map
the route of ADT. Legislation enacted in 1992, Public Law 102461,
authorized a feasibility study for the trail, which the National Park
Service completed in January of 1996.
The ADT is truly unique. It is the first trail to extend from coast
to coast. It is also the first national trail designed to connect urban
areas to wilderness areas. The designation of ADT, a multiuse
trail, itself creates a national system of connected trails and links
large cities and communities of all sizes across the Nation with ma-
jestic forest and remote desert landscapes. ADT also links such na-
tionally known trails as the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails
with numerous local trails across the United States. Along the way,
it provides access to countless historic cultural and scenic land-
marks.
I introduced the House version of this bill because I believe that
the ADT will provide outstanding family-oriented recreational op-
portunities for all Americans. It will serve as the transcontinental
backbone for a growing National Trails System by linking together
a variety of local, regional and national trails and making them
more accessible. In addition, ADT will offer important economic de-
velopment benefits to the communities along the route.
States and communities are also justifiably excited about the in-
creased tourism opportunities which the ADT will present and are
asking to be included or want to know how they can hook on. In
that regard, I have had several experiences in my own State of
communities wanting to know how they can assure that they are
a part of the trail. I received, for example, a letter from the mayor
of York, Nebraska, my birthplace. Last year the city of York recog-
nized the benefit of the ADT and took the initiative to request that
the city be included on the route. I am pleased to say that their
request was accommodated.
I also clearly want to stress and stress again that the ADT takes
into account private property concerns by routing almost all of the
trail on public landsmostly public road, highway rights of way.
I understand that a private property rights advocate, Bill Theis,
also will testify later this morning, and I would like to reassure
him and everyone else that one of the basic principles on which the
ADT has been developed has been to avoid routing on private prop-
erty.
The ADT is 6,356 miles long and almost entirely on public lands.
As it is proposed, only approximately 58 miles of the route are lo-
cated on private property and then only locations where there are
existing rights-of-way or agreement with existing trails or by invi-
tation. Private property rights would be fully protected through
6
language in the bill which mandates that, quote, No lands or in-

terests outside the exterior boundaries of federally administered
areas may be acquired by the United States solely for the American
Discovery Trail, so it doesnt provide eminent domain or opportu-
nities, it simply does not raise this issue. And if that is raised be-
cause of the very straightforward reassurances to the contrary, I
think you would understand that opposition in this respect would
be a red herring.
I would also like to take a moment to mention the importance
of the ADT in my home State as one example of the impact across
the country. In Nebraska, the trail passes through Omaha, Lincoln,
Grand Island, Kearney, North Platte, Ogallala, and numerous
small communities. Trails groups throughout the State have been
energized by the ADT, since they have realized the important role
they will play in this unique national trails initiative.
Nebraska, of course, like many States, has a rich trails history,
and I am pleased that the ADT gives trails enthusiasts the oppor-
tunity to explore the most popular and significant of the pioneer
trails to the West Coast and the mountain region.
The Mormon trail, I might say, I participated with some people
re-creating the trip from eastern Nebraska, two locations, one in
my district and one near it, across the State, all the way to the Salt
Lake City region. They will be arriving there, Mr. Chairman; you
can tell me exactly when, but I think it is in late July. I noticed
the impact it had on schoolchildren along the way as they made a
special effort to explain what was happening, what life had been
like in this vast, uncharted prairie country 150 years ago; and peo-
ple came back from Utah, for example, to commemorate people who
lost their lives along the way. But this route in Nebraska takes the
same course as the Mormon Trail, the Oregon Trail and the Cali-
fornia Trail, as well as a Pony Express Trail and the route of the
first transcontinental railroad.
Additionally, I would highlight the trails effort by the city of Lin-
coln, Nebraska, in relation to ADT, they showed a high level of en-
thusiasm for the ADT, which has become the focal point for the
citys trails programs. They received recently a great deal of fame
and success in their trails effort, but I wont go into great detail,
you have got that in the record.
The city of Lincolns example demonstrates, I think, the positive
impact the ADT has had on communities through counterpart ac-
tivities already. The community has worked hard to create an out-
standing trail system, and it is clear these efforts were energized
by the ADT.
I think this is an appropriate opportunity to acknowledge and
commend Mr. Reese Lukei, Jr., the ADT national coordinator. I un-
derstand he will also testify in front of this subcommittee for this
legislation. From the beginning, Reese has been an energetic and
tireless advocate for the ADT. His impressive efforts along with the
American Hiking Society certainly raised awareness of the trail
and support for it.
The ADT is supported not only by the American Hiking Society,
but also the National Parks and Conservation Association, Amer-
ican Trails, American Volkssport Association and numerous local
trails organizations. I would also like to briefly mention two books
7
about the ADT which have been published. I have them here. One
is an explorers guide, edited by Reese Lukei; and the other is a
firsthand account of a journey along the trail written by Ellen Dud-
ley and Eric Seaborg, members of the 199091 trail-scouting team
who have submitted testimony for this hearing. These books de-
scribe the unique and fascinating qualities of the ADT.
[The information can be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Finally, I would conclude by mentioning that al-
though the ADT is national in scope, this important trails project
is made possible by grass-roots efforts on the State and local levels.
Enactment of this legislation is critically needed in order for the
ADT to achieve its outstanding potential. With the passage of this
bill, we will help ensure the ADT will offer benefits for generations
to come.
I have not been on the entire 6,300 miles of the trail, Mr. Vento;
I have been at both ends. But I think you have seen parts of it,
and I have seen other parts of it and walked on them or biked on
them, and this is an outstanding effort, I hope this committee will
be able to advance.
Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. We appreciate your testi-
mony.
[The statement of Mr. Bereuter follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FOR THE
STATE OF NEBRASKA
Chairman Hansen, Delegate Faleomavaega, and Members of the Subcommittee:
I would like to begin by thanking you very much for scheduling this hearing and
giving me the opportunity to express the case for the passage of H.R. 588, the Na-
tional Discovery Trails Act, which I re-introduced on February 5, 1997. I first intro-
duced this legislation during the 104th Congress as H.R. 3250.
I would like to begin by stating that in an exceptional display of support, H.R.
588 has already attracted a bipartisan mix of more than 50 cosponsors. These co-
sponsors represent both rural and urban districts and cover very diverse geographic
areas. The list of cosponsors includes Members from 19 states, American Samoa, the
Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I believe its easy to see why this legislation has at-
tracted such widespread support. It represents the product of a true grassroots ef-
fort, and it is designed to provide a unique trail experience for millions of Ameri-
cans. I believe that this legislation is a tremendously positive and exciting step for-
ward in both the development and in the connection of trails in America.
The bill contains two important components: First, it creates a new category of
trails, designated as the National Discovery Trails. This new category will complete
a missing gap in the current National Trails System by establishing a link between
urban and rural trails. Second, the legislation will designate the American Dis-
covery Trail (ADT) as the first trail in the new category.
This trail was first proposed by the American Hiking Society and Backpacker
magazine in 1989. In 1990-91, a scouting team hiked and biked its way across
America, working with local citizen groups and local, state, and Federal land man-
agers to map the route of the ADT. Legislation enacted in 1992 (Public Law 102-
461) authorized a feasibility study for the trail, which the National Park Service
completed in January 1996.
The ADT is truly unique. It is the first trail to extend from coast-to coast. Its
also the first national trail designed to connect urban areas to wilderness areas.
This multi-use trail itself creates a national system of connected trails and links
large cities with majestic forests and remote desert landscapes. The ADT also links
such nationally noted trails as the Appalachian and the Pacific Crest trails with nu-
merous local trails across the U.S. Along the way, it provides access to countless
historic, cultural and scenic landmarks.
I introduced the House version of this bill because I believe that the ADT will
provide outstanding, family-oriented recreational opportunities for all Americans. It
8
will serve as the transcontinental backbone for a growing national trails system by
linking together a variety of local, regional and national trails and making them
more accessible.
In addition, the ADT will offer important economic development benefits to the
communities along its route. States and communities are also justifiably excited
about the increased tourism opportunities which the ADT will present and are ask-
ing to be included or want to know how they can hook on. In that regard, I would
like to submit for the record the letter I received from the mayor of York, Nebraska.
Last year the City of York recognized the benefits of the ADT and took the initiative
to request that the city be included on the route. I am pleased to say that their re-
quest was accommodated.
I also clearly want to stress and re-stress that the ADT takes into account private
property concerns by routing almost all of the trail on public lands. I understand
that a private property rights advocate, Bill Theis, will also testify later this morn-
ing and I would like to reassure him and everyone else that one of the basic prin-
ciples on which the ADT has been developed has been to avoid routing it on private
property. The ADT is 6,356 miles long and almost entirely on public lands.
As it is proposed, only approximately 58 miles of the route are located on private
property and then only in locations where there are existing rights-of-way or agree-
ments with existing trails or by invitation. Private property rights would be fully
protected through language in the bill which mandates that no lands or interests
outside the exterior boundaries of federally administered areas may be acquired by
the United States solely for the American Discovery Trail.
I would also like to take a moment to mention the importance of the ADT in my
home state. In Nebraska, the trail passes through Omaha, Lincoln, Grand Island,
Kearney, North Platte, Ogallala and numerous small communities. Trails groups
throughout the state have been energized by the ADT since they have realized the
important role they will play in this unique national trail initiative.
Nebraska has a rich trails history and I am pleased that the ADT gives trails en-
thusiasts the opportunity to explore the most popular and significant of the pioneer
trails to the West Coastthe Mormon Trail, the Oregon Trail and the California
Trailas well as the Pony Express Trail and the route of the first transcontinental
railroad.
Additionally, I would highlight the trails efforts by the City of Lincoln, Nebraska
in relation to the ADT. Lincoln has shown a high level of enthusiasm for the ADT,
which has become a focal point for the citys trails program. I am pleased that Lin-
colns extensive trails efforts were recently rewarded. Last month, the American
Hiking Society announced that Lincoln was chosen as a charter member of the Trail
Town USA Hall of Fame. A panel of judges including representatives from USA
Today, the American Society of Travel Agents, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
National Park Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, rated the City
of Lincoln as the number seven community in the nation for trails. The judges based
the awards on more than a dozen criteria including miles of trails, future plans, and
volunteer and government support. Two other urban areas in this top ten list are
also located on the ADT route.
The City of Lincolns example demonstrates the kind of positive impact the ADT
has had on communities throughout the nation. The community has worked hard
to create an outstanding trails system and it is clear that these efforts were ener-
gized by the ADT. Lincolns strong commitment to the development of trails will
continue to pay dividends in the form of increased tourism, economic development
and recreational opportunities for its citizens.
This is an appropriate opportunity to acknowledge and commend Mr. Reese Lukei,
Jr., the ADTs national coordinator. I understand that he will also testify before the
Subcommittee in support of the legislation. From the beginning, Reese has been an
energetic and tireless advocate for the ADT. His impressive efforts, along with the
work of the American Hiking Society, have certainly helped raise awareness about
the trail and support for it.
The American Discovery Trail is supported by not only the American Hiking Soci-
ety, but also the National Parks and Conservation Association, American Trails,
American Volkesport Association and numerous local trails organizations. I would
also like to briefly mention two books about the ADT which have been published.
One is an explorers guide edited by Reese Lukei and the other is a firsthand ac-
count of a journey along the trail written by Ellen Dudley and Eric Seaborg, mem-
bers of the 1990-91 trail-scouting team, who have submitted testimony for this hear-
ing. These books describe the unique and fascinating qualities of the ADT.
Finally, I would conclude by mentioning that although the ADT is national in
scope, this important trails project is made possible by the grassroots efforts on the
state and local level. Enactment of this legislation is critically needed in order for
9
the ADT to achieve its outstanding potential. With passage of this bill, we will help
ensure that the ADT will offer benefits for generations to come.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 588.
LETTER TO HON. DOUG BEREUTER FROM GREG ADAMS, THE MAYOR OF YORK,
NEBRASKA
June 4, l997
Representative Doug Bereuter
2348 Rayburn, House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Doug:
Your continued support of the National Discovery Trail System and the American
Discover Trail Route is to be commended.
Completion of the American Discovery Trail Route in the York area would afford
billing enthusiasts additional recreational opportunities and provide a direct link
with larger population centers providing access to additional recreational facilities.
Outdoor recreation interest, biking in particular, has grown tremendously in the
York area in recent years and we believe this trend will continue into the 21st cen-
tury
The economic benefit resulting from users of the proposed trail system is difficult
to project. However, it is with certainty that York and other communities along the
American Discovery Trail Route will realize a positive economic impact. Users, and
in some cases their support groups, will need food, lodging, and supplies as they
enjoy this recreational experience.
Again, we urge your continued support for the American Discovery Trail System.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF YORK
Greg Adams,
Mayor
Mr. HANSEN. The Honorable Jerry Weller, we are grateful to
have you with us.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTA-

TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also grateful for
the hearing you are providing for H.R. 1513. I also want to thank
Mr. Vento and Mr. Jones for the opportunity to be with you today
and to testify on behalf of this legislation, which I feel is both an
important and exciting initiative, a bill to designate the Lincoln
Historic Trail, legislation that has earned bipartisan support in Illi-
nois delegation.
Before I go on, I would like to take an opportunity to recognize
Leonard Lock, Chairman of the city of Ottawa Historic Preserva-
tion Commission, and one of those who, almost 20 years ago, was
a pioneer, leading an effort to establish the Illinois-Michigan Canal
Heritage Corridor through Illinois. Mr. Lock has taken his time to
join us today to testifyand will be testifying later this morning
to be with us and share his knowledge and insight on Lincolns his-
tory throughout Illinois and, of course, his reason for naming this
particular trail after Abraham Lincoln.
I would like to briefly talk about this bill, which would designate
the Lincoln National Historic Trail as a component of the National
Trails System. This trail would consist of a 350-mile stretch gen-
erally following the Illinois River and the Illinois-Michigan Canal
Heritage Corridor. The trail would begin at the Chicago Portage
National Historic site and conclude at the Lewis and Clark Trail
at Wood River.
10
My legislation resulted from a feasibility study conducted by the

National Park Service. The Park Service was directed by Congress
to determine the feasibility and desirability of establishing the Illi-
nois Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. I should
mention here that my legislation changes the name from Illinois
Trail to Lincoln Trail, but it is the exact same trail that was
studied. The Park Service concluded the proposed trail met the cri-
teria for both national historic trails and national scenic trails, but
that a historic trail would be most feasible.
As I mentioned, the trail would generally follow the Illinois River
and the I&M Canal. The Illinois River was used for commerce and
transportation during Lincolns day, although French settlers were
using it for trade long before Lincolns time. As a matter of fact,
Abraham Lincoln, while serving as a State legislator, was a pro-
ponent of building the canal between the Chicago River and the Il-
linois River at LaSalle, which was a major navigational improve-
ment that helped position Chicago as a major economic center,
which it has since become and achieved that goal.
There would be interpretive sites along the trail of historical sig-
nificance. For instance, the trail would go through Ottawa, Illinois,
the site of the first of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates. Others
include the old Beardstown courthouse, which is the only remain-
ing courtroom where Abraham Lincoln practiced law.
I also might note that the studies show that this route comes at
a very low cost with little land acquisition and is the route pre-
ferred by the State of Illinois according to the Park Service study.
The Park Service would develop and manage access areas and fa-
cilities to allow recreational boating on the historic waterway. The
Park Service would be responsible for administration of the trail
and would work with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
to coordinate trail facility development, as well as areas for pic-
nicking and camping. Designation of the Lincoln National Historic
Trail would increase tourism, conservation and recreation while
reinforcing Abraham Lincolns contributions to our Nations his-
tory.
Creation of the Lincoln National Historic Trail will bring history
and nature enthusiasts to the region for biking, camping, boating
and other recreational activities. This increased tourism will im-
prove local economies along the route. The folks that come to visit
the Lincoln Trail will eat in local establishments, stay in local ho-
tels, and patronize local establishments to rent and purchase
skates, cycling equipment and other items. A U.S. Department of
Interior study on the Impact of Rails-to-Trails found the average
trail user spent between $4 and $11 a day, generating an annual
impact of $1.2 million or more. Due to the length of the length of
the trail, we would expect this number to be much higher. This
plan is great for economic development throughout the State of Illi-
nois.
There is some evidence that having a trail such as this adjacent
to property will increase its value. The survey of real estate agents
completed on a similar trail in Washington State revealed that
property near the trail sells for an average of 6 percent more.
To summarize, my legislation, H.R. 1513, would designate the
proposed Illinois Trail as a national historic trail, while changing
11
the name to the Lincoln National Historic Trail. I have also in-
cluded a provision that requests a study of an extension of the trail
along the Sangamon River from Beardstown to Springfield. This
would be a water-based route and would emphasize important his-
toric and cultural sites along the river, ending at Springfield, Abra-
ham Lincolns hometown.
Finally, I would like to express my support for the other piece
of legislation the committee is looking at today, the American Dis-
covery Trail, a bill by Congressman Bereuter. I am pleased to en-
dorse his initiative.
I ask for your support, and I also want to thank you for this
hearing today and the opportunity to present this legislation.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Weller follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for having me here today to talk about a very exciting piece of legisla-
tiona bill to designate the Lincoln National Historic Trail. Before I go on, I would
like to recognize Leonard Lock, Chairman of the City of Ottawa Historic Preserva-
tion Commission, who has taken his time to come out to Washington to be with us
today and share his knowledge and insight on Lincoln history throughout Illinois.
Mr. Lock will present his testimony shortly.
I would like to briefly talk about this bill, which would designate the Lincoln Na-
tional Historic Trail as a component of the National Trails System. This trail would
consist of a 350 mile stretch generally following the Illinois River and the Illinois
and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor. The trail would begin at the Chicago Por-
tage National Historic site, and conclude at the Lewis and Clark Trail at Wood
River.
My legislation resulted from a feasibility study that was conducted by the Na-
tional Park Service. The Park Service was directed by Congress to determine the
feasibility and desirability of establishing the Illinois Trail as a National Scenic
or National Historic Trail. I should mention here that my legislation changes the
name from Illinois Trail to Lincoln Trail, but is the exact same trail that was
studied. The Park Service concluded that the proposed trail met the criteria for both
national historic trails and national scenic trails, but that an historic trail would
be most feasible.
As I mentioned, the trail would generally follow the Illinois River and I&M Canal.
The Illinois River was used for commerce and transportation during Lincolns day,
although French settlers were using it for trade long before Lincolns time. As a
matter of fact, Abraham Lincoln, while serving as a state legislator, was a pro-
ponent of building the canal between the Chicago River and the Illinois River at La-
Salle, which was a major navigational improvement that helped to position Chicago
as a major economic center. There would be interpretive sites along the trail that
have historical significance. For instance, the trail would go through Ottawa, Illi-
noisthe site of the first of the infamous Lincoln-Douglas debates. Other historical
sites include the old Beardstown Courthouse, which is the only remaining courtroom
where Abraham Lincoln practiced law.
The Park Service would develop and manage river access areas and facilities to
allow recreational boating on the historic waterway. The Park Service would be re-
sponsible for administration of the trail, and would work with the Illinois Depart-
ment of Natural Resources to coordinate trail and facility development, as well as
areas for picnicking and camping. Designation of the Lincoln National Historic
Trail would increase tourism, conservation, and recreation while reinforcing Lin-
colns contributions to our nations history.
Creation of the Lincoln National Historic Trail will bring history and nature en-
thusiasts to the region for biking, camping, boating and other recreational activities.
This increased tourism will improve local economies along the route. The folks that
come to visit the Lincoln Trail will eat in local establishments, stay in local hotels,
and patronize local establishments to rent or purchase skates, bicycling equipment
and other such items. A U.S. Department of Interior study on the Impacts of Rails-
to-Trails found that the average trail user spent between $4 and $11 per day, gener-
ating an annual impact of $1.2 million or more. Due to the length of the Lincoln
12
Trail, we could expect this number to be much higher. This plan is great for eco-
nomic development throughout the state of Illinois. There is some evidence that
having a trail such as this adjacent to property will increase its value. A survey of
real estate agents completed on a similar trail in Washington State revealed that
property near the trail sells for an average of 6 percent more.
To summarize, my bill, H.R. 1513, would designate the proposed Illinois Trail
as a national historic trail, while changing the name to the Lincoln National His-
toric Trail. I have also included a provision that requests a study of an extension
of the trail along the Sangamon River from Beardstown to Springfield. This would
be a water-based route, and would emphasize important historic and cultural sites
along the river, ending at Springfield, Abraham Lincolns birthplace.
Finally, I would like to express my support for the other piece of legislation we
are looking at today, the American Discovery Trail bill by Congressman Bereuter.
I am a co-sponsor of this legislation, and am pleased to lend my support. I urge the
Committee to move favorably and approve H.R. 1513, to designate the Lincoln Na-
tional Historic Trail.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota, do you have ques-
tions for our colleagues?
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, with regards to Mr. Wellers legisla-
tion, I havent examined the study, but there is this nomenclature
issue with regards to what best description occurs; and the gen-
tleman sitting next to you represents Lincoln, Nebraska, so the
name gets used often, so I think you ought to think long and hard
about that.
I asked the staff, Rick Healy on the Minority sideand I think
the issue is, if you want to attach Lincolns name, you might want
to talk about the canal as being the Lincoln Canal and try to keep
nomenclature accurate with regards to the Illinois Trail, because it
does follow the river. So I would suggest that as an alternative; it
isnt enough, but I think you want to be accurate with regards to
how you designate that.
My colleague from Nebraska has put forth and been working
I said 5 years, and I guess it has been 8 years you have been work-
ing on this particular proposal; and it is a very ambitious proposal
in terms of its length and breadth in covering the Nation. Later we
are going to hear some corrections from the Park Service about
this, and they are going to discuss some of the conflicts that are
inherent.
I sponsored this bill with you, I think it is important enough, al-
though it is a generic change to the basic trails legislation with re-
gards to motorized use, in order to avoid or at least keep this tied
together. I havent looked at this in as much detail as I should
have, Congressman Bereuter, but what segments, or how many
miles? Have you separated any of the mileage out in terms of how
much would be motorized and how much would not be motorized?
Mr. BEREUTER. No, I dont know the answer to that. Perhaps one
of the witnesses involved in the initial pioneer scouting trail will.
I would say that the predominant amount of the 6,000-plus miles
are on rights-of-way, existing rights-of-way, but of course there are
a number of areas it does cross State parks or national forests, and
those oftentimes do not follow.
Mr. VENTO. I think it is a good concept to tie together national
lands and State parks and other units along the way that give peo-
ple the experience.
At the end of this, you said you hadnt covered it all, but I sup-
pose when you run for President, this will be one of your commit-
13
ments, to in fact entirely tread this trail, or at least bike it part

way.
Mr. BEREUTER. I am more realistic, I hope, about the opportunity
to pass this legislation than I am about any intention to run for
President, I think.
Mr. WELLER. May I respond to Mr. Ventos question regarding
the nomenclature?
Mr. HANSEN. Surely.
Mr. WELLER. Illinois, we are very proud to call, The Land of
Lincoln and of course, other thanwe recognize he was born in
Kentucky, but he spent his entire professional life, other than
while he served briefly in the Congress and while he served as one
of our Nations greatest Presidents, in Illinois.
This trail would start in Chicago where Abraham Lincoln was
nominated for President, and I just think, when you think of Illi-
nois, you think of Abraham Lincoln; and that is why we feel it is
an appropriate name for a national trail.
Mr. VENTO. This is a pristine logic, Mr. Chairman. I would just
suggest, I think there are two separate sites; there is the home-
stead site for Lincoln in Illinois, in Springfield, but there is another
site as well.
In any case, I think in terms of the publics looking at these, they
expect it may bring those together or actually have a connection
with, for instance, Kentucky; which I think makes the point that
I am trying to, you know, in terms of communicating this to those
that understand the history better than I, and as well as you, Mr.
Weller.
In any case, I would offer it as a way of, you know, recognizing
where his role was significant in terms of the establishment of the
Michigan-Illinois Canal, the Heritage site, and obviously you would
accomplish both goals, and you do it in such a way as to be con-
sistent and so operating isnt obviously a big point.
Mr. WELLER. And I am most anxious to work with you in a bi-
partisan manner, and I appreciate that.
Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
The colleague from Nebraska, I often wonder, at the National
Governors Conferencethe counties, the mayorsany support or
comment or objection to your bill? Do any of these groups come
forth?
Mr. BEREUTER. I have not received comments from them on it
one way or the other. There have been news articles lately in some
of the national publications, which indicate support from individual
governors and, of course, wide numbers of mayors. I have had no
one contact me in my own State in a negative sense, either public
official or nonpublic, but I dont believe that any of the national as-
sociations of public officials of various varieties have taken a posi-
tion on it one way or the other. Perhaps I am more delinquent in
not asking them to do that.
Mr. HANSEN. You have kept them aware and apprised of what
is going on, and so far you have had no comments?
Mr. BEREUTER. That is correct.
Mr. HANSEN. In your testimony, you make a point of the idea,
it would not acquire private land or any private property. Do you
14
intend that that would occur anywhere? I mean, this is the most
ambitious trail I have ever looked at, and I wonder if you envi-
sioned any of that occurring along the line.
Mr. BEREUTER. As you know, there are only 58 miles that are not
now on public rights-of-way or public lands, and those have exist-
ing agreements that have been acquired at this point. My view is
that the only real source of opposition to this legislation could come
from people that are concerned about the taking of private prop-
erty, and so I simply wanted to set aside that issue, because the
people who have worked with me over a period of time have indi-
cated it is not necessary to have an opportunity for eminent do-
main, and in fact, they go beyond that and say we do not anticipate
nor want the right, under the legislation, to acquire private prop-
erty, even from willing sellers. Fifty-eight miles in 6,300 is such an
insignificant amount, and there is no reason, of course, why one
needs to have it all on public land as long as you have arrange-
ments with the owners of the 58 miles.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would say
this. You may have noticed that the legislation, which prohibits the
acquisition of private land, does not apply to the category of trails
being created, only to the American Discovery Trail itself; and I
would leave to your judgment, as a trail-by-trail consideration of
future legislation, whether or not you wanted to prohibit the acqui-
sition of private land on new trails that might be added under this
category.
But I simply did not want to face that difficulty, because I dont
think it is essential to the success of this trail, and I didnt want
to have that raised as an argument against this particular trail,
the American Discovery Trail. But you will have the judgment in
the future, unless you would prefer to change the legislation and
make the prohibition a categoric one that would apply to future
trails.
Mr. HANSEN. I have noticed, in the little bit I have seen of your
legislation, a lot of it is contiguous to interstates, State roads, areas
such as that. They are constantly changing interstates or adding
lanes and they are changing direction. Does that give you any con-
cern at all? Do we have a conflict anywhere with that?
Mr. BEREUTER. We think that there needs to be an ongoing effort
on the part of the nonprofit organization in working with the Na-
tional Park Service, and of course, the Department of Transpor-
tation and its State equivalents, to modify the trail in the future
as the specific route changes, because there is a right-of-way
change. Generally those changes would be modest, it would seem,
especially in the part of the countryyou have a heavy roads sys-
tem with lots of county roads in my part of the country, of course,
on a square-mile basis. But in some parts of the country, like your
own, there arent that many alternatives in the more sparcely set-
tled parts of the Nation west of you.
So I do think you need to have an ongoing effort as roads change,
as rights-of-way are selectedfor the route might change modestly,
I would thinkto redesignate that particular 2- to 5-mile, 10-mile
stretch, whatever it might be.
Mr. HANSEN. On the Great Western Trail, we hooked up existing
trails; we put signs up saying, This is the Great Western Trail.
15
To this day, it isnt completed, but it starts in Mexico, and parts

are motorized, there are parts of only walking trails. I guess we
can take animals on most of them. Most of this is done by volun-
teers who have volunteered their time
Mr. BEREUTER. That is correct.
Mr. HANSEN. [continuing] and have spent an awful lot of time
improving the trails and have worked with local governments. It
really hasnt cost the Federal Government much money at all.
What do you anticipate, cost-wise, on this?
Mr. BEREUTER. The Park Service at this point would indicate
that the comprehensive plan developed by the nonprofit organiza-
tion, which would be presented to you and your equivalent in the
other body, would cost $360,000; then the annual cost is estimated
to be $200,000 for signing and the relatively small amount of main-
tenance that relates to the trail.
So we are obviously talking about a trails enthusiasts volunteer
effort. If they are talking aboutonly about that amount of sign-
ing, you know that doesnt go very far. I do think, as you probably
were noting yourself, that the refinement of a trail, through the
markings and through the development of it, is an ongoing process.
I am very proud of the fact that the Lewis and Clark Trail, basi-
cally a water trail, passes on the boundary of my State; and some
time ago, with the help of this committee, I gave some incentives
for local groups to designate all of the Lewis and Clark camp-
grounds. But again, the markers or the kiosks or the outlooks that
were developed on public land, that had a lot of volunteer effort as
well; and that effort is not complete in the surrounding States.
I think our State is ahead in marking all the campgrounds, but
it has provided, incidentally, an opportunity for people in my State
and from elsewhere around the country to actually retrace the
Lewis and Clark expedition with excerpts from the journal for that
day on the signs that are erected; and it is done in a fashion that
is consistent with the logo that was established by the National
Park Service, so that ultimately, it will tie the whole effort to at
least some degree of similarity in marking.
Mr. HANSEN. I have noticed our colleague from Virginia, Mr.
Pickett, hasnt arrived.
Mr. VENTO. Just a brief question for Mr. Bereuter. One of the
concerns expressed by the Park Service is the exemption from the
American Discovery Trail from two sections, and while one author-
izes the acceptance of donations in collaboration, through coopera-
tive agreements, the other authorizes land exchanges to protect na-
tional trails. These provisions, both of which would be voluntary in
thisyou know, someone conveying land or an easement or volun-
tarily entering into a cooperative agreement, or a land exchange,
where you have a conflict with the Park Service or the Department
of Interior, could accomplish that.
I take it youryou did this consciously, you left these out be-
cause you are concerned about not having any authority in here for
gaining additional land within the context of it. But it seems to
meI understand the good faith you are trying to show, and even
in spite of this, you areconcerns are being raised; but do you un-
derstand, my concern is that it seems to me that these tools are
important administrative tools, especially for the length and
16
breadth of the trail, so I hope we can work out something, notwith-

standing that.
You are being criticized today in spite of the fact you have done
this, but I just think those are reasonable tools that I think the
Park Service needs in this instance, especially considering the
length, because you can avoid problems by using those tools.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Vento, I knew of the concerns of the Park
Service, but in an abundance of caution, we took this step to try
to avert any kind of legitimate criticism about expansion of public
lands and a concern that local governmental units might lose tax
base. You will, of course, have the judgment on that issue. I cer-
tainly dont see anything wrong with donating funds, but when you
donate land, you are back in a controversy. And I would just point
out, once again, page 5, line 8, those three subsections that are ex-
empted in this legislation do not apply to the category, you may
have noticed, but it applies only to this trail, this ADT; it does not
apply to the category being established.
Mr. VENTO. Of course, the issue here is some can be purchased
by nonprofits; we dont have any control over that, so I think con-
tinuity would make some sense. If this were, I suppose, threshold
questions with regards to what the impact would be, I would say
in a rural county, you could have a donation of easement that
might diminish the land value or do other things, I dont know, but
it seems to me in terms of trying to avoid conflict and provide the
type of experience and the meaningful designation that you have
been advancingbut I understand your concern. I just wanted to
make the observation with regardsbecause I think some of us
would try to administer things, where we have such limited options
makes it difficult to accomplish the goals we are trying to achieve,
and I think you can understand what I am saying.
Mr. BEREUTER. I do.
Mr. HANSEN. You know, there is nothing easy in the world, espe-
cially in Congress, but we will work things out as we go along. I
am sure there will be additional questions. In my mind, I am won-
dering about rights-of-way, gas lines, power lines, all of those
things. I dont think we have ever done anything easy around here,
have we?
Mr. VENTO. Not when it is 6,000 miles.
Mr. HANSEN. But I do appreciate our two colleagues giving their
excellent testimony and the very tantalizing and intriguing pro-
posals you have put before this committee. Thank you for being
here. I wish Mr. Pickett could have been with us. We will take his
testimony, however. We will excuse you and turn to our first panel.
Our first panel is Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director, Cul-
tural Resources, Stewardship and Partnership, for the National
Park Service. We are always grateful to have Katherine Stevenson
with us. And Robert C. Joslin, Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest
Service. If those two would come up.
I hope you are all right. Can you suffer through this?
Ms. STEVENSON. Yes, sir. I had thought of telling you that this
was the result of a climbing accident or something of the like, but
I thought it wouldnt be best to lie to Congress.
17
Mr. HANSEN. I can understand that. I always like to make it a

skiing accident and tell somebody; I really say, I fell down some
stairs or something.
Anyway, can both of you handle 5 minutes or what time do you
need? Is 5 minutes adequate? OK. You know the rules; just like a
traffic light.
We invite both Mr. Weller and Mr. Bereuter to come up if they
feel so inclined.
Ms. STEVENSON. Would you like me to testify on both H.R. 588
and H.R. 1513 at the same time.
Mr. HANSEN. If you wouldnt mind. Do you need a few more min-
utes, maybe 10 minutes?
Ms. STEVENSON. No, I dont need that much time.
Mr. HANSEN. Why dont we give you 7, because I think you are
probably going to need the time. I know how good you are at this;
you are an old hand at it. We will go ahead and recognize you at
this time
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DI-

RECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES, STEWARDSHIP AND PART-
NERSHIP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Ms. STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the full
testimony for the record if you would be so kind.
On H.R. 588, the National Park Service strongly supports enact-
ment, if amended, as proposed in our testimony. As several wit-
nesses before me have pointed out, the bill establishes a new cat-
egory of long-distance trails, the national discovery trails, and also
authorizes the American Discovery Trail as the first national dis-
covery trail.
The National Park Service has been involved in this for a num-
ber of years, since 1990 when the ADT was proposed. In 1992, Con-
gress directed a feasibility study, which we completed in December
of 1995 and submitted to Congress in 1996. The trail proposed, as
you have pointed out, extends over 6,000 miles and the criteria de-
scribed in the bill will further the goals of the National Trails Sys-
tem by incorporating a variety of cities and towns and will increase
public access to the trails system. The primary management re-
sponsibility will be with a strong partner and then with us, and we
believe very strongly that the partner should be there from the be-
ginning and have a major role in the development, as well as the
designation, as has been the case.
The trail largely uses existing trails and trail systems, and you
have heard a fair amount of testimony already, that only a handful
of private parcels will be authorized, or will be involved, and that
an underlying trail exists already, as do voluntary agreements with
those private property owners.
On the ever-present issue of cost, the details will be in the com-
prehensive management plan. The feasibility study said the com-
prehensive management plan itself would cost $360,000 over the
course of several years and that our estimated operating costs
would be about $400,000 per year. I refer you to the proposed
amendments in our testimony, pages 6 through 9, and I wont ad-
dress those individually unless you wish.
18
In H.R. 1513, Interior supports the designation, but not the

name or the focus on Lincoln. This bill would again amend the Na-
tional Trails System Act by adding another national historic trail
called the Lincoln National Historic Trail and designating a study
trail that would extend the Lincoln Trail. In large measure, this
proposal is the trail proposed in the feasibility study called the Illi-
nois Trail that was transmitted to Congress by the National Park
Service in 1991. The study itself was conducted from 1984 to 1987,
so the study is some 10 years old.
We found the trail to be nationally significant for its historic and
prehistoric use as a commerce and transportation corridor. While
Abraham Lincoln has a connection, as has been pointed out earlier,
to the Illinois and Michigan Canal portion of the trail and perhaps
some other portions, we would argue the national significance lies
in its role in the development of trade, commerce and transpor-
tation, as well as exploration, migration and settlement, so a much
broader significance than that of Lincoln alone.
It may well be that a trail directly associated with the life of Lin-
coln is appropriate, but we have not yet studied this issue and
could not support this named designation. Consequently, we rec-
ommend that the trail on the Illinois River and waterway route be
designated as the Illinois Trail, and the additional study route be
deleted until it could be part of an entire Lincoln proposal to be
made at a later date.
Thank you very much for considering our comments. We look for-
ward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate your comments.
[The statement of Ms. Stevenson can be found at the end of the
hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Joslin, we will turn the time to you.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. JOSLIN, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S.
FOREST SERVICE
Mr. JOSLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-
committee. Thanks for inviting us to come and share our views on
H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act of 1997. I brought with
me Lyle Laverty, Director of Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness
Resources in the Forest Service. As stated, my complete statement
has been submitted for the record, so I will summarize that state-
ment and then will be glad to answer questions from you and mem-
bers of the subcommittee.
The Department of Agriculture does not object to the creation of
a new category of trails as proposed by H.R. 588, the National Dis-
covery Trails Act of 1997. You have already heard the background
on the American Discovery Trail from Mrs. Stevenson, so I will not
repeat it. The National Trails Systems Act consists of eight na-
tional scenic trails, 12 national historic trails and over 800 national
recreation trails. The Forest Service is responsible for the overall
management of more than 125,000 miles of trails in the national
forest system.
Trails are a key ingredient to wonderful outdoor, recreational
and scenic experience, which is why over 30 million recreation vis-
itor-days are spent each year in trails in the national forests. The
success of long distance trails, such as the American Discovery
19
Trail, is dependent on strong State and local support in conjunction

with public and private partners. Working cooperatively through
partnerships and volunteer groups, as stated in the National Trails
Systems Act, would be essential elements of the success of the
American Discovery Trail.
We wish to raise two concerns with regard to planning and ad-
ministering the American Discovery Trail, as stated in H.R. 588.
The first point deals with the comprehensive management plan.
Section 2(c) of the bill would require that the administering Fed-
eral agencies shall enter into arrangements with a competent,
trail-wide, nonprofit organization to submit a comprehensive plan.
It is unclear who has the ultimate responsibility for preparing
and transmitting the comprehensive plan to Congress. Nonprofit
organizations are not responsible to the public or the Congress for
consistency with other trail management policies. Allowing non-
Federal organizations to be held responsible for land management
decisions made in the comprehensive plan also raises concerns
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. We recommend that
the bill be amended to provide that the comprehensive manage-
ment plan would be prepared by the administering Secretary in
consultation with the management entity and that the secretary
would submit the plan to Congress.
Our second concern deals with how the trail would be adminis-
tered. H.R. 588 requires the administering Secretary to cooperate
with aquote, a, unquote, competent trail-wide nonprofit organiza-
tion. This presumably implies that only one nonprofit organization
will be involved in the administration of the 6,000-plus mile trail.
We believe this is unduly restrictive.
We recommend changing the bill to include one or more private
non-Federal entities, which would then provide the opportunity to
optimize the benefits to the public and build collaborative steward-
ship among the public, the nonprofit organizations and the Federal
Government.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I will be glad
to take any questions you might have.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Joslin can be found at the end of the hear-
ing.]
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I note with interest the
testimony from Mr. Joslin, the Deputy Chief, and I appreciate the
testimony. I refer specifically to page 4, Mr. Chairman, where he
comments about the relationship between the nonprofit and the
Park Service and Forest Service.
Mr. Joslin, Deputy Joslin, would you suggest there ought to be
more clarification here, that the Park Service and Forest Service
ought to be in a coordinating role of more than one nonprofit, so
theyis that your suggestion here?
Mr. JOSLIN. No, sir. The suggestion therethe Park Service
would have the administration over this, but the suggestion there
is that we include language which would not specifically say, one,
which is somewhat limiting, although the language may encompass
that now. We believe it should be clarified.
20
Mr. VENTO. Director Stevenson, how many nonprofits work on,

for instance, the Appalachian Trail? Isnt there a multiple number?
Ms. STEVENSON. Yes, sir, there are many, many nonprofits that
work on it. Our experience has been if you have a single group,
who is the lead group, that it makes it significantly easier for us
to work with them, and it is their responsibility to work coopera-
tively with the smaller groups and get them together to have a sin-
gle opinion.
Mr. VENTO. You differ with the Forest Service testimony here?
Ms. STEVENSON. It is a difference of opinion, yes, sir.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Joslin, does the Forest Service have any non-
profit groups that they work with?
Mr. JOSLIN. Yes, we do, and in connection with the ATC, we
agree with the way that works, but there arethe language in
there, all we are saying is, if you have the language as it is now,
perhaps you might not be able to incorporate
Mr. VENTO. You are saying you can do one if you want to do one,
but you ought to have the flexibility, is what you are saying, so
there would be no objection to that?
Mr. JOSLIN. That is correct.
Mr. VENTO. Director Stevenson.
Ms. STEVENSON. Actually, we would have an objection. We feel
very strongly there needs to be a lead group.
Mr. VENTO. But you can select or not select the lead group.
Ms. STEVENSON. That leaves you with the position of choosing
among them, and if there is a lead group that has to be formed
from a larger group, they among themselves decide who the lead
group is and agree upon a method of dealing with us. Otherwise,
you have enormous difficulty in relating to a large number of peo-
ple.
Mr. VENTO. I think the concern is, at the end of the day, it is
a coordinating role, and if in fact the designated nonprofit were not
to be performing, there ought to at least be the recognition that the
Forest Service or the Park Service can in fact work with the indi-
viduals. I realize it is more difficult to do in that vein, but I dont
know that there have beenI guess there have been some prob-
lems with regards to the Appalachian Trail; is that correct?
Ms. STEVENSON. No, the Appalachian Trail has worked out very
well with a single coordinating group.
Mr. VENTO. Has thatis it designated in the law, per se?
Ms. STEVENSON. I dont believe so.
Mr. VENTO. If it is worked out, I dont understand what the con-
cern is about the added flexibility being added here. If you can do
it without the designation in law, why would you want to limit
your flexibility?
Ms. STEVENSON. Our experience was that that was come to after
a long and arduous journey. There were many times there were
significant differences of opinion. All we are trying to suggest is
that we could circumvent some of those problems by saying up
front that the groups would choose a single representative to rep-
resent all of them and then we would have one relationship, rather
than many.
Mr. VENTO. In any case, I think an important point was made
here when it was indicated that a significant number of volunteers
21
helped maintain and do a significant number of tasks that relate

to enhancing the quality of the trails, that the Forest Service and
the Park Service both have had significant volunteer efforts to
maintain the trails, is that correct.
Ms. STEVENSON. That is correct.
Mr. VENTO. And I see Mr. Joslin is nodding his head too. Unfor-
tunately, we are on an audio system.
Mr. JOSLIN. Yes.
Mr. VENTO. With regards to the language I referred to, with do-
nations of easements, you obviously favor not having that language
in the bill that is in the bill now, the limitations on donations and
cooperative agreement.
Ms. STEVENSON. We feel it would be very advantageous for us to
have the ability to use every tool at our disposal to make this trail
work and therefore they should be included as options for us.
Mr. VENTO. To what extentin terms of this cooperative agree-
ment and conveying to the nonprofits the responsibility here, to
what extent would the Park Service or Forest Service be involved
in dealing with, for instance, State parks or State trails or other
national units that might befor instance, BLM, wouldnt the Park
Service or Forest Service need to be involved at that particular
point and work very closely in order to gain the confidence of those
groups in providing easements and working with you and signing?
Ms. STEVENSON. I think I understand your question. We would
cooperate with other Federal agencies and with State parks to the
fullest extent along the trail.
Mr. VENTO. You both spoke of the fact of the comprehensive plan,
but who in the end would be responsible for preparing and submit-
ting the comprehensive plan?
Ms. STEVENSON. The National Park Service in this case.
Mr. VENTO. Even though the work would be done by the non-
profit group, I assume most of this is in here in this way to avoid
the cost concerns; and if it were, I suppose, under a different period
of time, we might look at it differently. The private group, would
they have to comply with, for instance, all the environmental laws,
like NEPA.
Ms. STEVENSON. We would prepare such a plan in cooperation
with them and assure that all the appropriate laws were met. Then
we would be the one who actually had to submit it, that is the proc-
ess we choose now.
Mr. VENTO. You would have to go through NEPA yourself.
Ms. STEVENSON. We would meet all Federal laws.
Mr. VENTO. You used NEPA for the study, didnt you.
Ms. STEVENSON. I believe so.
Mr. VENTO. The question I would ask Mr. Bereuter, do you know
what the breakdown is in terms of the motorized miles on the
6,000-mile trail.
Ms. STEVENSON. Actually, it is in the report itself.
Mr. VENTO. I will look in there then, if you dont know it off the
top of your head, because my light has been on for a minute.
Mr. JOSLIN. Sixty-five percent of it is either paved or graveled.
Mr. VENTO. What does that mean? I mean, for instance, the trail
I bike on is paved, this long trail that I do in the gateway, isnt
necessarily motorized though.
22
Ms. STEVENSON. And we may not have that detail. Page 20 of the
report has the trail statistics for paved, gravel, and trails and side-
walk.
Mr. VENTO. Even though it is paved or gravel doesnt meanwe
have a lot of limestone paths and bike paths, for instance, in Wis-
consin. I am from Minnesota, but I do go over there. So I am point-
ing out that in itself doesnt necessarily indicate it is motorized. In
fact, we cant have motorized. In fact, I would get the roller-bladers
off there. If you ever tried to pass one of them, they are all over
the place.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. No questions.
Mr. HANSEN. Does the gentleman from Illinois have any ques-
tions?
Mr. VENTO. The question he should be asking is on the nomen-
clature there.
Mr. HANSEN. I dont think he wants to. If I may ask, a major pro-
vision of H.R. 588 exempts the American Discovery Trail from land
acquisition. The testimony states that the National Park Service
believes the national discovery trail should not be exempt from Sec-
tion 7(e) and (f) of the National Trails System Act. This creates the
fear that private landowners have concerning this bill or further
land acquisition in general.
All you have done is leave Section 7(g) in the bill, which would
not allow condemnation. If you are not going to condemn things, is
it the intent of the National Park Service to eventually acquire the
trail right away for the American Discovery Trails and any subse-
quent national discovery trails?
Ms. STEVENSON. May I ask Tom Ross, who is one of our trail spe-
cialists and very familiar with the Act to answer that?
Mr. HANSEN. Bring him up. Identify yourself and grab that mike
on the other side. Tell us who you are for the record.
Mr. ROSS. Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Tom Ross. I am the Acting Assistant Director for Recreation and
Conservation Programs with the National Park Service. I believe
the question you raised was in regard to our request to have au-
thority to use those two subsections, under Section 7. They would
allow the opportunity for us to participate with the trail organiza-
tions in cooperative agreements and also for the Federal Govern-
ment to carry out land transfers under that authority. Specifically
in our testimony, we are in agreement with the bill, which pre-
cludes any kind of Federal acquisition authority for this particular
trail.
Mr. HANSEN. Do you envision possibly at a later date the Na-
tional Park Service will ask Congress to authorize and appropriate
funds for acquisition.
Mr. ROSS. No, sir. The intent of the entire Discovery Trail cat-
egory is to build upon the efforts of State, local and the nonprofit
groups that are involved in establishing trails and not to create any
new federally owned areas.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, do you have any further questions, Mr. Vento.
Mr. VENTO. I just wanted to comment to my colleague in Illinois,
there is an Illinois boyhood site for Lincoln in Springfield and one
23
in Kentucky, so there are three different sites. I was trying to re-

call what the circumstance was.
With regards to your last question, Mr. Chairman, I think the
issue that is going to arise is that, of course, if you build this
framework, this 6,000-mile framework, it is possible States or local
governments or nonprofits will, in fact, fill in the areas and help
you. Of course, that does arise.
What comes back to us at that particular time, then, as we were
to work with that, would be the question of operating expenses,
which have greatly been diminished by all the volunteer efforts.
This is the logical extension in terms of what we are doing. There
are some questions about the conflicts that occur.
When I joked about the roller-bladers, they also havethey are
doing ways of inventing. I mean, once you put the trails in place,
you end up with a tremendous number of people. So the caring ca-
pacity issue with regard to the trails, especially around some urban
areas, is a real important question, you know. So I just would point
that out in terms of trying to deal with these.
I mean, there are a lot of questions that arise with regard to mo-
torized use. For instance, if you are actually using freeways or
highways, we have fences around them so that people arent walk-
ing around on them. So in these cases, you would not have a con-
tiguous area you could walk in. Is that the point, Ms. Stevenson,
or the other member of the Park Service? Can you answer that
question? How do you anticipate use of the trail differing in terms
of the motorized use, other types of uses? In some areas, you would
not be able to take your roller blades; is that right.
Mr. ROSS. That is correct, sir. I think, as the study indicates, a
good portion of the American Discovery Trail, initially, will be
along roadways and sides of roadways, and that by its nature
would not be able to preclude any sort of motorized use.
Mr. VENTO. You can bike though, cant you?
Mr. ROSS. Yes, sir.
Mr. VENTO. That is the important thing.
Mr. HANSEN. We have always been kind of concerned about the
trails and I think the general consensus is we feel good about them
and they are a part of our culture and history and that type of
thing. On the other side of the coin, they seem to be like many gov-
ernment programs. They start out very innocuous and before we
long we are pouring money into them and I think that is what Mr.
Bereuter is trying to work out.
On the great western trail we worked on, we have scrupulously
tried to make sure we are not pouring any Federal money into this
thing. I cannot believe the amount of people that go up and clear
that trail and they have started societies and organizations and
memberships and fraternities and the whole 9 yards about it, and
part of the thing in life is to have on your badge that you have both
hiked the Appalachian trail, what do they call it, the Pacific Crest
Trail and also the Great Western Trail, and I admire the folks who
can do it.
I guess we get a little nervous if we anticipate, one, private prop-
erty being desecrated without a willing seller or willing right of
way and, two, the money that has to come out of Congress. On the
24
other side of the coin, there are things that are worth appro-
priating money for because of the historical nature of it.
Mr. Weller, if I may point out, there seems to be some concern
on names in your particular area. Some of us, we have heard, there
might be an amendment to change it to Land of Lincoln National
Historic Trail. Have you heard that, and if you havent, would you
agree to it?
Mr. WELLER. I was not aware of a Land of Lincoln National His-
toric Trail and the sponsor of that particular amendment has not
discussed it with me.
Mr. VENTO. It is getting better all the time, isnt it?
Mr. WELLER. I am proud Congressman Lipinski represents the
area to the north and the city of Chicago is working closely with
me, and I am anxious to work with members of the committee in
a bipartisan way to move this legislation forward. Clearly, Abra-
ham Lincoln played a very important role for this Nation and Illi-
nois is the land of Lincoln. I am anxious to work with this com-
mittee as we move through this process, but I do believe the Lin-
coln name as part of this national historic trail would be important.
I think it is important he have his name as part of that name.
Mr. HANSEN. We appreciate Katherine Stevenson and Robert
Joslin for being with us, and the gentleman, is it Watt?
Mr. ROSS. It is Ross, sir.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your testimony. Excuse me for not
picking that up.
Our second panel is Bill Theis, David Lillard and Reese Lukei.
If they would come forward. I understand Mr. Pickett wanted to be
here to introduce one of our witnesses. I havent seen him yet.
We have room for our third panel, Mr. Leonard Lock. Mr. Lock,
if you would like to come up, we might as well have you all at the
same time. We are grateful for our friend from Virginia, Mr. Pick-
ett. You can join us up here, if you would like to or wherever you
are comfortable. We will turn to our friend from Virginia, colleague,
Owen Pickett, to any opening statement he may have and any in-
troduction of witnesses he may want to cover
STATEMENT OF THE HON. OWEN B. PICKETT, A REPRESENTA-

TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much for
this opportunity. I know you are having a very busy hearing this
morning, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to come
here and introduce to the committee Mr. Reese Lukei of Virginia
Beach. He is a gentleman who not only talks about matters involv-
ing the National Trail System, but I think perhaps his record of ac-
tually using the system either equals or exceeds that of just about
anyone else I have ever had occasion to be associated with. So he
comes here today with a clear and fully justified bias in favor of
the National Trail System, and yet he brings an objective and real-
istic view that has been built upon, his own experience in using the
system, and in helping others and encouraging others to use it also.
So I look forward to the testimony of Mr. Lukei here today.
I commend him for coming and lending his support, and I thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present him
25
and tell you a little bit about his background in the National Park
System and what it means to him and to our Nation.
[The statement of Mr. Pickett follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. OWEN B. PICKETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA
The American Discovery Trail, administered by the American Trails Society, is
our nations first coast to coast multi-use hiking trail. The trail is a 6,356 mile long
route that links a patchwork of trails35 percent existing, the others newly cre-
atedthat will serve as a connector between the east and west coasts of the United
States and inspire interest in outdoors by providing new and better places to explore
nature. Although the trail has already been mapped across America, it still needs
to be authorized by this Committee in order to be included as a part of the Amer-
ican Trails System.
I was introduced to the American Discovery Trail project by a constituent of mine,
Mr. Reese Lukei. Through his efforts, I became a cosponsor of H.R. 3250, the Amer-
ican Discovery Trails Act 1996, in the 104th Congress, and I am proud to be an
original cosponsor of this legislation in the 105th Congress. I am very pleased to
have one of my constituents in Washington, today to testify on behalf of this most
worthwhile legislation.
Mr. Lukei, an avid trail enthusiast, has been involved in community, state, and
national trail projects for several years. He is currently the National Coordinator
for the American Discovery Trail, the Vice President of Virginia Trails, an active
volunteer with the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, located in Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and is licensed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to trap and
band raptors. Mr. Lukei has received numerous awards from the American Hiking
Society, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice for outstanding service and contribution to the trails community. And perhaps
the most important of all, he has hiked in all 50 states, every province and territory
in Canada, except Newfoundland, seven countries in Europe, and all 2,100 miles of
the Appalachian Trail. If this does not make Mr. Lukei an expert on the subject
of trails . . . I dont know what would!
Reese, if I missed anything I apologize, but with limited time and such excep-
tional background and credentials, it would take me the rest of the morning to
present your achievements to the Committee. I would like to reaffirm my strong
support for this legislation and thank the Chairman for allowing to speak today.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. I appreciate you being with
us. Mr. Weller, did you want to have any introductory remarks of
this panel?
Mr. WELLER. Well, thank you, I made reference to Mr. Lock who
is part of your panel, I want to thank you for the opportunity for
him to testify. Leonard Lock is chairman of the city of Ottawa His-
toric Preservation Commission and is a Lincoln scholar and has
been a real leader in conservation efforts and open space initia-
tives. I also want to point out that the Illinois-Michigan Canal Her-
itage Corridor, which has come up today, resulted from the efforts
of people like Leonard Lock.
Leonard was one of the leaders, almost a generation ago, in help-
ing to establish the national heritage corridor and with the spon-
sorship of Tom Corcoran, who served in the Congress and was my
mentor in the political process. I want to welcome Mr. Lock and
also thank the Chairman for his opportunity to testify.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. You folks heard the rules. Can you han-
dle it in 5 minutes? If you cant, let me know, we will give you a
couple minutes longer, but really that is our rules, 5 minutes. You
see the light in front of you, its just like a traffic light. Green, go;
yellow start winding up; and red cut it off. We dont give you a tick-
et if you go over, especially in a loose hearing like this one, but we
appreciate if you stay somewhat close. We will start with Mr.
Lillard and just go across.
26
STATEMENT OF DAVID LILLARD, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
HIKING SOCIETY
Mr. LILLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David
Lillard. I am the President of the American Hiking Society. I would
like to thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee
today. First, I will address the issue of establishing the national
discovery trail category within the National Trail System Act and
then speak briefly on the authorization of the American Discovery
Trail.
The National Trail System Act has made possible 20 long-dis-
tance, primarily multi-State trails, but the current construction of
the Act does not fully address the changing demand for outdoor
recreation in America, which is at an all time high. As called for
by President Ronald Regans Commission on Outdoors, todays fam-
ilies need outdoor recreation opportunities that are closer to home.
Also outlined by President Reagans Commission, trails and
greenways provide cost-effective recreation and bring focus to local
and regional park planning by linking existing parks and forests
with places where people live and work. The idea of linking people
with parks and linking existing parks and trails with one another
truly makes a system of the National Trail System, rather than a
collection of trails, yet no long distance trail designation within the
current Act encourages or accommodates trails which are developed
for such purposes.
So the national discovery trail category fulfills the Reagan Com-
missions recommendations for such linkages. In addition to linking
existing parks and trails with one another and with communities,
discovery trails by their intent also link outdoor recreation with
local commerce. By bringing discovery trails into cities, small town
and suburbs, local businesses have provided a regional focus for
commercial activity.
Discovery trails also promise a vehicle for promoting regional
tourism, an opportunity already seized upon by the tourism offices
of the States of Nebraska, Colorado and West Virginia. So although
the benefits and primary use of discovery trails would be local and
regional, the new category of trail does indeed recognize corridors
that are nationally significant. Discovery trails are nationally sig-
nificant because they provide the possibility of linkages we have
talked about. They invite States and local governments to think co-
operatively about a national trail while making their own decisions
that meet their own needs and they allow Americans to discover
for themselves the regional diversity which is America, a discovery
that will foster an appreciation of shared American values and an
understanding of regional differences, whether East and West or
urban and rural.
Although they are nationally significant, discovery trails do not
require Federal management on trail lanes outside of Federal acre-
age. In fact, as we discussed, Discovery Trail categories require in
place a citizen-led, nonprofit organization to support the trail be-
fore it is even designated by Congress. Still, there is a very impor-
tant Federal role in Discovery Trails, that of the convenient and
the technical assistance.
The Federal Government has a vast range of expertise and expe-
rience that would help State, local and other Federal
27
decisionmakers, as well as nonprofit organizations to coordinate

their activities and their planning. This is a bold idea for Federal
involvement in trails. It says to Americans, if your community
wants our assistance, we will participate in your efforts. It also
challenges States which develop discovery trails to utilize innova-
tive means for conserving trail corridors, including conservation
easements, voluntary transfer of development rights, privately
funded land trust and conservancy, so I stress local and voluntary
and private and local involvement.
This emphasis on linkages makes the most of the American in-
vestment in parks and trails, the reliance on local decisionmaking,
and the private sector involved in the administration of Discovery
Trails have been enthusiastically embraced by the trail community
and the Members of this chamber, an enthusiasm illustrated by the
more than 50 cosponsors of the measure.
On the authorization of the American Discovery Trail within the
new category, the ADT fully meets the criteria for the National
Discovery Trail designation in H.R. 588. First, it meets the linkage
criteria by linking together cities of Washington, Cincinnati, Kan-
sas City and Denver and also links nationally significant trails as
has been outlined.
Second, it does meet the qualification criteria of a nonprofit orga-
nization. The ADT Society is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) and was
formed specifically to promote and care for this trail. Clearly, at
the local level people want this trail. Third, it meets interstate
criterias as has been clearly outlined.
In closing, the American Discovery Trail is a nationally signifi-
cant grand idea. It presents new ways of getting big things done
by putting them into the hands of people who care about them the
most. It has generated a lot of excitement within the States long
underserved by Federal recreation programs, such as Nebraska and
Kansas and others and these States deserve our gratitude and en-
couragement, along with Federal recognition and assistance on the
project. ADT was ahead of its time when it was conceived, but this
Congress gives us hope that its time has come. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Lillard can be found at the end of the
hearing.]
Mr. Lukei.
STATEMENT OF MR. LUKEI, JR., NATIONAL COORDINATOR,
AMERICAN DISCOVERY TRIAL SOCIETY
Mr. LUKEI. Chairman Hansen and members of the subcommittee,
I am Reese Lukei, Jr.. I am and have been for the past 7 years,
the national coordinator of the American Discovery Trail, a project
begun in 1989 by the American Hiking Society and Backpacker
Magazine to, one, establish our Nations first coast-to-coast
multiuse recreational trail through a nationwide grass-roots effort.
Two, connect as many existing local and regional national trails
together as possible. Three, route the trail through large metropoli-
tan cities, bringing it closer to where people live. And, four, provide
encouragement to local citizen groups and municipalities to develop
and maintain trails in their area. Under the National Trail System
Act, eight national scenic trails have been created under the model
28
established by the trail and are mostly located in remote areas,

avoiding urban areas.
In the past 30 years, a number of studies by Federal agencies,
the outdoor recreation industry and the housing industry, all indi-
cate that recreational trail use has increased tremendously and is
expected to continue to do so, and that people want to recreate clos-
er to where they live. The proposed long distance trail category, na-
tional discovery trails, and the American Discovery Trail, will rec-
ognize these trends.
The ADT is a first long-distance trail that has been intentionally
designed to link trails together and to pass through or near large
metropolitan areas. Thirty-two million Americans live within 20
miles of the 6,000, 356-mile route of the ADT. The American Dis-
covery Trail connects five of the eight national scenic trails, 10 of
the 12 national historic trails and over 200 local and regional
trails.
Two of those trails are the proposed Lincoln National Historic
Trails, whichmaybe it is going to be Lincoln National Historic
Trail, which Congressman Weller is here to speak to today and the
great western trail, which had legislation successfully sponsored
last year by Chairman Hansen. This has been accomplished
through the involvement of several thousand citizen volunteers
under the outstanding leadership of our 15 State coordinators who
paid all their own expenses.
Much credit is also due to the local, State and Federal land man-
agers, town councils, planning commissions and economic develop-
ment and tourism divisions, for their cooperation, assistance and
encouragement. We have been sensitive to private landowners with
whom we have held many meetings.
Of the 6,356 miles of the American Discovery Trail, only 58 miles
are on private property and all of that is on existing trails and with
the landowners permission. The ADT has provided incentive to
many local projects, such as the Ute Pass Corridor Trail in the
Pikes Peak area of Colorado.
I request that the written statement of Richard V. Bratton,
Mayor of Green Mountain Falls and Chair of the Pikes Peak Area
Council of Governments be made a part of the public record and
I quote from his written statement. The ADT will provide a
unique and important connection between urban and back-country
trail systems. ADT will help us to realize a nonmotorized link be-
tween the second largest city in Colorado, Colorado Springs, and
the mountain communities that surround Pikes Peak. The concept
of the ADT has already been instrumental in assisting us in our
local fund-raising efforts, supporting grant requests and capturing
the interest of State, county and local elected officials. The ADT is
key to our success. That is the end of his quote.
[The information can be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. LUKEI. The ADT is already producing economic benefits for
the communities along its route. Ellen Dudley and Eric Seaborg,
who were referred to earlier as having written the American Dis-
coveries book of their experience, who laid the foundation of the
ADTs route in 1990 and 1991 scouting expedition, comment in
their written statement to the subcommittee that trails attract
tourists and businesses that cater to trail travelers which are al-
29
ready springing up on many sections of the American Discovery

Trail.
On behalf of the ADT State coordinators, the thousands of citizen
volunteers and the land managers who have worked hard for 8
years to create the American Discovery Trail, a trail that millions
of Americans will use, I request that you recommend to your col-
leagues in the House of Representatives the passage of House bill
H.R. 588, the National Discovery Trails Act of 1997.
Thank you for allowing me to present my comments and I believe
I can answer some of the questions that were previously presented
to some of the prior committee members.
[The statement of Mr. Lukei can be found at the end of the hear-
ing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Theis.
STATEMENT OF BILL THEIS, MEMBER, S.T.O.P. (STOP TAKING
OUR PROPERTIES) STEERING COMMITTEE
Mr. THEIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com-
mittee. I am a former teacher, turned businessman. The property
rights movement first attracted my attention in 1989 as a result
of proposed legislation that would have expanded the Indiana
Dunes National Lake Shore in northwest Indiana. In 1994, I was
elected to serve a 4-year term as the trustee/assessor of Pine Town-
ship in Porter County, Indiana, and currently I serve the property
rights movement as a member of the Stop Taking Our Property
Steering Committee and the Great Lakes Regional Chair for the
Alliance for America.
I come before you today in total support of recreational trails. My
own youth has very fond memories of summers I spent hiking the
Appalachian trail when it was privately owned. This was back in
the very early sixties, late fifties. However, I find myself philo-
sophically opposed to the idea the Federal Government should be
in the recreation business. I cant find any authority for this type
of action in the Constitution.
Further, I find myself opposed to the concept of federally sub-
sidized recreation. My own personal passion is fishing. One of the
best kept secrets in Northwest Indiana is the Lake Michigan fish-
ing. We have wonderful lake trout and steelhead and king salmon
and cohoe salmon. I fish on two teams that fish the tournaments,
and I would not come before this body and ask you to subsidize my
hobby, and I dont think that the Federal Government should be
getting involved in subsidizing other peoples hobbies.
It is very difficult for me to understand why this bill is even
being considered when congressional concern seems so focused on
balancing the budget without making cuts in social security and
Medicare. Therefore, I must stand firmly in opposition to House bill
588. However, I realize there are people who are philosophically op-
posed to my particular stand on this issue and if you do choose to
move forward with the legislation, I urge you to give serious con-
sideration to the following suggestions.
The bill states no lands or interests outside the exterior bound-
aries can be taken. There is a problem here. In 1966, we could ex-
change the words we have heard here today so far on the trail sys-
tem with the words, Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore, where
30
there was not an intent to take anybodys home. It was going to

be strictly willing seller. It was going to be strictly voluntary and
strictly cooperative.
The end result was Thursday, September 5th, the U.S. Park
Service evicts woman and son. Despite all the promises, things
tend to change in Congress over the years, and I dont know if any-
body on this committee was here when that happened, but this is
one of over 700and this is national parks figures, people who
have lost their homes and business in the Indiana Dunes National
Lake Shore. And I would like to present the Chairman, I will leave
it with the committee, a video tape of the Federal marshals pulling
the moving van up in front of the house, escorting her out of the
house and moving her lifetime possessions out.
Other examplesthis type of legislation is always subject to fu-
ture editions and changes and other examples include view scapes,
sound scapes, easements, covenants, buffer zones, and, yes, the ex-
emption from condemnation gets lifted. The Appalachian trail
serves as a good example of how original trail acts tend to get ex-
panded by these types of legislative devices.
I have with me today Mr. David Guernsey, who can answer ques-
tions in detail because he was here when this happened and he
also made this a part of the record of this committee, and we talk
here that the provisions in National Trail System Act of 1968, the
Park Service was to put up a 1,000-foot corridor to protect the Ap-
palachian trail.
They offered to donate the land and the Park Service said, no,
and I see my yellow light went on here and I want to get some
other things so maybe we can address that in questions. Two, the
second suggestion I have is we put a sunset clause of some sort on
there so that this proposed plan doesnt drag on and on and on and
on for years. Thirdly, the provision to enter into arrangements with
the trail-wide nonprofit organization is just unacceptable. If the
trail system is to have any chance of success, I would suggest we
look at the Indiana Rails to Trails Act that was passed last sum-
mer. It was very, very successful and it was agreed to by all and
there are several things in there that I bring to your attention, the
first of which is that any proposed trail had to have the official ap-
proval and participation of every unit of local government through
which the trail passed.
I have heard lots of testimony here today that everybody is in
favor of this. Nobody asked me. I did an instant poll with 300 prop-
erty rights and resource organizations on Sunday when I was tell-
ing them about this bill and not a single one of the organizations
was contacted or asked about this. Despite the immense amount of
planning, these groups are being ignored. If it is to have any
chance of success, that needs to be included. There is also a little
thing called a fence requirement that takes care of the liability.
Any property owner, who is adjacent, and that is an issue we
havent addressed here today, is the adjacent property owners,
have issues of privacy and liability. In Indiana, any property owner
who requests a fence, that is a trail organization, is responsible for
putting that privacy fence up, which then, of course, limits the li-
ability. So it brings us down to the three basic questions: Do we
31
want it, and who is we? Does this include all affected parties? Do
we need it? And I think we need to differentiate, especially in to-
days budgetary times, between the wants and the needs. We face
that every day with our own township.
And thirdly, can we afford it? There is no mention in the bill
about moneys, but I am already hearing a figure of 360,000 here,
200,000 there, so this committee has a really tough decision to
make. Is the trail more important than our parents social security?
Is the trail more important than the medicare? Is the trail more
important than maybe giving some of the taxpayer money back to
the American public? Thank you for allowing me to testify today.
I will be glad to answer any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Theis can be found at the end of the hear-
ing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Theis.
Mr. Lock, we will recognize you, sir.
STATEMENT OF LEONARD E. LOCK
Mr. LOCK. Mr. Chairman and Members of Congress, my name is
Leonard Lock. I am from Ottawa, Illinois, which is the site of the
first Lincoln-Douglas debate, and since there is a question on the
floor concerning the name of the trail, I will try to address that
issue, if I may.
Tom Gilbert, who I talk to on the telephone all the time, wrote:
As you know, Lincoln heritage is one of the several important
themes of the proposed Illinois National Historic Trail, along with
Mississippian Indian culture, French exploration and transpor-
tation. I am going to submit a proposal that will include all of
those, and, also, eventually, include the Congressman from Ken-
tucky, that the Lincoln National Historical Trail, this would be
Phase 1. Phase 2 would go from Springfield to Vincennes, Indiana,
to of course, his birth place in Kentucky. All of these could be incor-
porated. This could be phase one.
Lincoln was a Member of Congress, as you know, and he made
a very important statement June 20, 1848, when he said that sugar
had been, for the first time, shipped from New Orleans to Buffalo,
New York. There was a navigational gap in the Nation, and the
canal, which is the ditch that put Chicago on the map, made that
become a reality.
Most of this information is included in my written statement,
and I am going to include that so that this should be read to get
the full impact. And as Congressmen, I am not trying to tell you
what to do, but Abraham Lincoln was a master at satire, and some
of these were hilarious. What he did to the former Attorney Gen-
eral that was a member of the legislature in the old capital in
Vandalia, Illinois, is hilarious. I urge you to read it. He also did
the same thing to David Dudley Field at the Chicago Rivers and
Harbors Convention in 1847, where 10,000 people came.
Lincoln wanted to be Illinois DeWitt Clinton. When he first ran
for public office, and incidentally he was defeated, he said he sup-
ported internal improvements. He never changed that, to his Presi-
dency and his two annual messages to Congress. He told his friend
Joshua Speed in Springfield that ran a store, he wanted to be Illi-
nois DeWitt Clinton. And he also made a speech in Vandalia, he
32
made it in Congress and he made it for the Chicago Rivers and

Harbors Convention. So he was associated with the canal.
For example, he came to hearings in my hometown of Ottawa for
legal claims against the canal. He also took a trip down the canal
with his family. He was in Washington, DC as a Congressman. He
went to Buffalo, and then he came down to the Great Lakes and
went down the entire canal on October 8, 1848, and he went as far
as Peoria, of course from LaSalle, Peru, he went by steamboat,
then went to Peoria, Illinois, and then by stagecoach to his own
home.
And here, to include everyone, for example, if I just may take,
the State of Illinois obtains its name from the great Village of the
Illinois, from which there was an SOS out a few years ago, that is
Save Our Site, and it was purchased by the State, and that is
where the Mission of the Immaculate Conception occurred, and
that is Pere Marquette. The other trails would be the Chicago Por-
tage, Pere Marquette, W.D. Boyce, and Chief Shabbonah and Lin-
coln-Douglas Debate Trail.
And here are all the various things regarding the entire trail, the
Illinois-Michigan Canal, the Illinois River, and the branch to
Springfield. Presidential messages to the Congress are rarely noted
for their literary significance, but the annual message to Congress
of December 1, 1862, is Lincolns literary masterpiece.
In that, President Lincoln said (Dec. 1, 1862): The military and
commercial importance of enlarging the Illinois-Michigan Canal
and improving the Illinois River is presented in the report of Colo-
nel Webster to the Secretary of War, and now transmitted to Con-
gress. I respectfully ask attention to it.
The story of the canal and the Illinois River is a story of Illinois
and the Nation. This historic travel began the transformation of a
backwards wilderness into the worlds richest reservoir of civiliza-
tions blessing. The work of the pioneers should be preserved and
woven into the cultural life of present and future citizens of the
Nation, for school children in Illinois and across the Nation and
throughout the world sing:
We have an old mule named Sal. We want to ride on Mr. Lin-
colns national historic trail. And in conclusion, this may be one
of the logos for the Lincoln National Historic Trail, which would
eventually include Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky. In conclusion, I
might add, I have been told many times that a foreign visitor com-
ing in to the United States is first interested in seeing Disney
Land, second, the Lincoln site.
[The statement of Mr. Lock can be found at the end of the hear-
ing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Vento.
Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I commented earlier about the
motorized versus nonmotorized aspect. How do you envision, Mr.
Lukei, the relationship in terms of motorized versus other uses of
the trail? Important uses like straight line roller blades.
Mr. LUKEI. Actual recreational and motorized uses only two or
three small sections of the trail, one in southwest Utah, on the
Piute Trail, which is actually an ATV trail, and the other are two
33
trails in which snowmobiles are allowed. One is a Hoover Valley

Nature Trail and one of the other trails in Iowa.
There is a distinction between motorized recreational use. We are
on a number of roads. They are mostly back country, farm-to-mar-
ket roads, on which recreational vehicles, such as ATVs and snow-
mobiles are illegal, that is why they are called off-road vehicles.
Therefore, the roads we are on are roads which hiking, bicycling
and horseback riding are legal activities.
I would also point out that while currently the route is about one
one-third on existing trails, one-third on some type of dirt or gravel
road and many are roads that have limited access like Forest Serv-
ice roads, and in Nebraska, the irrigation system out there has
maintenance roads which allow recreational use on them and we
follow some of those irrigation roadways, and the others are back-
country roads that, again, recreational motor use are not permitted
on.
So this is intended to be a nonmotorized recreational trail. There
is very little conflict in those areas with respect to motorized use.
Actually, in Mr. Hansens State of Utah, we were intentionally
routed on the Piute Trail near Circleville, by the Forest Service
and by the local citizens who built that trail.
Mr. VENTO. I understand that. I know even in the State of Min-
nesota, we have 15,000 miles of snowmobile trail and sometimes
there is a common use with the snowmobile and cross-country ski-
ers and other types of uses. And we found out, because snowmo-
biles have sort of a cleat in the track that they actually cause a
lot of damage to the trail, you know, so they wear it down and the
maintenance costs have gone up, but they do pay a certain fee and
so forth so it can be maintained. But it is increasingly an issue
even there, much less within the voyagers.
Mr. Theis, we were pleased to find our way up here together
today and I read your testimony and I noticed that you feel the
Federal Government shouldnt be involved in any type of recreation
activities because you think we have more important tasks. I sup-
pose you made an exception for fishing, didnt you.
Mr. THEIS. As a matter of fact, I didnt.
Mr. VENTO. We were talking about fishing in Lake Michigan and
we talked about doing it in Lake Superior or some other puddle in
Minnesota, but you realize there is a lot of effort and investment
in terms of recreation in sport fishing by the Federal Government,
Fish and Wildlife Service, and, you know, dealing with invasive
species and a lot of other aspects.
Obviously fishing in Lake Michigan would look a lot different if
we didnt do something about things that occur there, ruffies and
the invasive species. I am trying to think of the other muscles,
zebra muscles. Actually, you think we ought to get out of it and let
someone else do it. You were talking about sport fishing. You are
not a commercial fisherman, are you?
Mr. THEIS. I am sport fisher. It is my understanding in Indiana
the stalking and taking care of the lake is done by the DNR and
we are required to pay a fishing license and the better part of that
money goes toward that activity, so in a sense, all the sports fisher-
men are paying their own way.
34
Mr. VENTO. We would all like to think that, but if you look a lit-
tle closer, you will find that general taxpayers pay a lot. We would
like to think they could pay their own way, and I suppose some
trail users feel they pay their way when they pay the income tax,
too.
Mr. THEIS. The State DNR, at least in Indiana, is constantly
making the legislature to raise the fishing license so they can cover
the cost, so I think a significant part is taken care of that way.
Mr. VENTO. We hear a lot about it. We went through a process
of raising fees for entrance users and any other way we can extract
it to the point we are now getting backlash from some corridors,
Mr. Chairman, about that, as they are implemented. It is inter-
esting to me, the Forest Service, they always look better in Wash-
ington than they look on the ground in Minnesota and I would say
in Utah it is different, but in any case, I think they pay 10 or 15
percent at the most of what the cost is of running some of the agen-
cies. And I think the same would be true of some of the forests or
the Fish and Wildlife Service, which we as sports persons depend
upon. I dont object to it, I just wanted to make the observation.
I understand your concerns and I just think that that one ought
to receive a little more consideration.
Mr. HANSEN. Did you want to respond, Mr. Theis?
Mr. THEIS. Yes, I will respond and another comment comes to
mind, Mr. Chairman, if I can take a minute to do that. I think
maybe in the interest of fairness, if we are going to have fishing
and hunting licenses for fishing and hunting people, maybe we
should consider having hiking licenses for the hiking people so it
is at least partially subsidized. But on another thought, as I listen
here today, and I have done my research, a thought has come to
mind. There is an alternative here to all of this.
If nobody is objecting to the idea of a trail of a national signifi-
cance and historic and good idea, the objection is what it might be-
come above and beyond that. Well, that if that is really the only
purpose for it, maybe we dont need legislation, and the idea came
to mind, as Mr. Bereuter talked about the Lewis and Clark Trail.
Senate Resolution 57 said God bless the Lewis and Clark Trail. It
is nationally significant. It is wonderful and we want to recognize
it, and that was the end of it. And perhaps with the trail, all we
need is a resolution, rather than a legislation that might be ex-
panded and eventually lead to condemnation of property and what-
ever.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, we can reduce ourselves to passing
commemoratives and probably everybody would be happy because
we wouldnt do anything for or to someone. I want to comment on
the Illinois River Trail and I appreciate the work that has been
done by the witness, Mr. Lock, on this issue, but much of what you
talk about, of course, is the Illinois-Michigan Canal, and so I guess,
again, I will reiterate, you did explain a logic where you were going
to connect the birth place and the boyhood home and the Spring-
field site so maybe you want to comment about that further for me.
Mr. LOCK. Yes, I would. I have a photostatic copy ofthe Lincoln
National Life Foundation has done a study including all the trails,
and so has Lloyd Ostenkoff in the back of his book, regarding Lin-
coln and his entire life and that includes, Illinois, Indiana and Ken-
35
tucky, the major States. That should be a goal of Congress, very

long-term, and this could certainly be phase one, and I think it is
equally as important. I think the debate site in Ottawa is equally
as important as his birth place in Kentucky and I would support
both.
If I may enter into the record, I did bring this along for the Li-
brary of Congress and all of Congress. It is called Lincolns Connec-
tion with the Illinois Michigan Canal and (also includes) the Illi-
nois River, his return to Congress and his Invention and there was
an Abe Lincoln boat that went out of Morris, Illinois, and this is
available and I will give it to the Chairman for everyone in Con-
gress.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Weller.
Mr. WELLER. Just a brief comment. I think Mr. Lock, who is a
scholar and a noted historian in the area with his knowledge of
Lincoln, has done a fine job of reinforcing Abraham Lincolns con-
nection with Illinois and an area that would be included in the na-
tional trail, and I want to thank you for including Mr. Lock and
giving him the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Pickett.
Mr. PICKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice that this legis-
lation places the administration of this trail system under the Sec-
retary of the Interior, in cooperation with a competent trail-wide,
nonprofit organization, and other affected land managing agencies.
Mr. Lukei, I noticed that you were the national coordinator for the
American Discovery Trail Society.
How do you feel about this arrangement and do you think ade-
quate provision is being made to involve the various voluntary or-
ganizations that are concerned with trails and hiking?
Mr. LUKEI. Yes, sir, I certainly do, and in fact the model that is
used worldwide for the management of trails is a model established
by the Appalachian Trail and while we are not building a trail that
is identified as a remotely located trail, the management of that
trail is a model for it and the reason for that is, as Katherine Ste-
venson, from the Park Service pointed out, the agencies need one
lead agency or one nonprofit organization, with which they can
communicate and enter into agreements.
There are actually 63 organizations that have responsibility for
maintaining and managing parts of the Appalachian Trail, but they
all operate under the umbrella organization of the Appalachian
Trail Conference. We foresee a very similar management situation
with respect to the American Discovery Trail. There would be one
nationwide organization, the American Discovery Trail Society,
which would have the overall responsibility and the umbrella re-
sponsibility, working with the 150 or so organizations that we have
already identified along the route. I think that is not only a very
efficient way, but it is the most effective way and the Appalachian
Trail has shown that is the way to manage these long distance
trails.
Mr. PICKETT. Thank you very much. I know the Appalachian
Trail has a great record of being a very successful undertaking and
if that is going to be used as a model, I feel better about the way
this legislation is going to be administered. I want to thank the
36
witnesses for being here today and for offering their testimony con-
cerning this legislation.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Appreciate the gentlemans comments.
You have all raised some very interesting questions. This com-
mittee has wrestled with many of the problems concerning how we
do trails. We are talking designated trails here, but there are trails
through public lands and private land, all over the 50 States, basi-
cally.
The question, Mr. Lukie, you brought up motorized vehicles. It
is tough to determine. Go to the 1964 Wilderness Act. It doesnt say
motorized, contrary to popular belief. It says mechanized, so when
some of these go through a wilderness area, frankly, we really dont
even have a decision yet what is mechanized. It is to the eye of the
beholder. And to some peopleis a backpack still mechanized? The
question came up in this committee and we argued it for 40 min-
utes one day.
I guess technically it is. Is an oarlock mechanized when a river
goes through a wilderness area? Technically, I guess it is. There
are very few things you can take, maybe like our Native Ameri-
cans, you wouldnt take too much. The question comes up, when
you are going parallel to an existing road, why not used a mecha-
nized vehicle or a motorized vehicle, even, these little motor scoot-
er-type things or motorized mountain bikes, I think they call them
Hondas or Yamahas or whatever they are, and the question comes
up by many of the bikers, and biking is a big thing.
As you know, in the State of Utah, Mohab has turned into what
is a biking capital. There are thousands of mountain bikes. Every-
one has to have a $1,000 mountain bike now that is made out of
things that only went to the moon a few years ago and that is light
and can do the whole bit. We used to by Schwinn bicycles for $50.
Now, all my kids, they all have to have these mountain bikes that
are made out of things that I dont even understand.
So the problem comes down to, because it is really kind of a
tacky problem, and I appreciate all of you folks addressing some of
these problems. We have to sit here and either turn our heads or
put our heads in the sand or make legislation that has a lot to do
with thousands and millions of folks. So you have to be kind of
careful on these things.
You folks are talking designated trails, that is one thing. Look
at the trails that are sandwiched all over America and Alaska. It
is amazing to me, and any suggestions you may have concerning
that would be more than welcome. The question on both of these
bills, I always admire my two colleagues who have come up with
these. These are bold, innovative, stimulating, intriguing ideas, but
they are always fraught with a few problems in them, and the ones
that are going to leap out on these bills, especially Mr. Bereuters
bill, will be acquiring private property.
There is a lot to be said for what the government should be in
and what it shouldnt be in, I dont argue that. The 10th amend-
ment is clear on that, even though I think from the days of FDR,
the 10th amendment is a dinosaur, but it shouldnt be. What do we
exempt and what dont we exempt? I just want to thank my two
colleagues for very intriguing and interesting pieces of legislation
37
that they brought up and we will look forward to see how these
progress.
The gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, may I conclude by thanking you
for a hearing on the bill, 588. I would remind the subcommittee
what Daniel Burnham said when he laid out the plans for Chicago
after it burned down: Make no small plans. I like Mr. Lukies re-
sponse to the question raised just a few minutes ago about the co-
sponsorship with the reference to the, what we call out in the West,
Mr. Pickett, the Appalachian, but I know you said Appalachian, re-
gional trail, and you ought to be right, I suppose, since you live
closer to it. But I do think the experience there has demonstrated
why, in the dispute between the Forest Service and Park Service,
the sponsor of the legislation comes down on the sides of the Park
Service, believing there should be a single nonprofit organization,
which would work with a whole variety of other local organizations
which provide the volunteer, the labor and the skill and the care
for the trail. Again, thank you very much.
Mr. HANSEN. I thank you, gentlemen. Let me just point out that
what is done around here is predicated on who wants to get some-
thing accomplished. I noticed some of our witnesses talked about
NEPA, the Wilderness Act, FLPMA, all of those are very important
Acts. However, maybe it doesnt prohibit the President of United
States from completely violating those things on September 18,
1996, and putting 1.7 million acres of monument to the State of
Utah, which doesnt fit any of the criteria, which is my plug to
change the antiquities law, which I will be bringing to the floor in
a short time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Will the Chairman yield just one more time?
Mr. HANSEN. I will yield.
Mr. BEREUTER. I notice I am seated in Mr. Pombos seat and that
is one more reason to exercise caution on the private land issue.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me just add my thanks to my colleagues and
witnesses and all the folks who have made a point to be here today.
We appreciate you coming and it has been very informative, and
I am looking forward to reading the information that Mr. Lock has
brought up. I hope I have the opportunity to read that, kind of
being a history buff on the gentleman we are talking about.
Thank you very much. This hearing will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111

Hearing: Subcommittee On National Parks and Public Lands

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Hearing: Subcommittee On National Parks and Public Lands

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

HEARING ON H.R.

588, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

H.R. 588 AND H.R. 1513TO AMEND THE NATIONAL

JUNE 10, 1997WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 10522

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NA-

consisting of 20 congressionally designated, nationally scenic and

those resources as a very important aspect, as is the impact that

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTA-

The bill contains two important components. First, it creates a

language in the bill which mandates that, quote, No lands or in-

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTA-

My legislation resulted from a feasibility study conducted by the

ments, to in fact entirely tread this trail, or at least bike it part

To this day, it isnt completed, but it starts in Mexico, and parts

breadth of the trail, so I hope we can work out something, notwith-

Mr. HANSEN. I can understand that. I always like to make it a

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DI-

In H.R. 1513, Interior supports the designation, but not the

Trail, is dependent on strong State and local support in conjunction

Mr. VENTO. Director Stevenson, how many nonprofits work on,

helped maintain and do a significant number of tasks that relate

in Kentucky, so there are three different sites. I was trying to re-

STATEMENT OF THE HON. OWEN B. PICKETT, A REPRESENTA-

decisionmakers, as well as nonprofit organizations to coordinate

established by the trail and are mostly located in remote areas,

ready springing up on many sections of the American Discovery

there was not an intent to take anybodys home. It was going to

made it in Congress and he made it for the Chicago Rivers and

trails in which snowmobiles are allowed. One is a Hoover Valley

tucky, the major States. That should be a goal of Congress, very

S-ar putea să vă placă și